Two-Stage Exchange Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Shoulder Infection Is Associated with High Rate of Failure to Reimplant and Mortality

One- vs. Two-Stage Revision for Periprosthetic Shoulder Infections: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Periprosthetic shoulder infection (PSI) remains a challenging complication after shoulder arthroplasty. Therapeutic options include one- or two-stage revision, irrigation and debridement, and resection arthroplasty. With our systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to compare one- and two-stage revisions for periprosthetic shoulder joint infections and determine the most appropriate therapeutic procedure. We performed an extensive literature search in PubMed, Ovid Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CINAHL and filtered out all relevant studies. The meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model, heterogeneity was analyzed using I2, and publication bias was assessed using the Egger's test. A total of 8 studies with one-stage revisions, 36 studies with two-stage revisions, and 12 studies with both one-stage and two-stage revisions were included. According to the random-effects model, the reinfection rate for the entirety of the studies was 12.3% (95% Cl: 9.6-15.3), with a low-to-moderate heterogeneity of I2 = 47.72%. The reinfection rate of the one-stage revisions was 10.9%, which was significantly lower than the reinfection rate of the two-stage revisions, which was 12.93% (p = 0.0062). The one-stage revision rate was significantly lower with 1.16 vs. 2.25 revisions in the two-stage revision group (p < 0.0001). The postoperative functional outcome in one-stage-revised patients was comparable but not statistically significant (p = 0.1523). In one- and two-stage revisions, most infections were caused by Cutibacterium acnes. In summary, our systematic review and meta-analysis show the superiority of single-stage revision regarding reinfection and revision rates in periprosthetic shoulder joint infection.

Periprosthetic shoulder infection management: one-stage should be the way: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is still no consensus among surgeons on whether to perform a 1- or 2-stage surgical revision in infected shoulder arthroplasties. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to rigorously synthesize published studies evaluating the clinical outcomes, recurrence of infection, and other clinical complications in order to discuss which is the best strategy for treating periprosthetic joint infection after shoulder arthroplasty.

METHODS

Upon research using the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases, in November 2022, studies that presented 1- or 2-stage surgical revision as a treatment for periprosthetic joint infection after shoulder arthroplasty and assessed the reinfection rate on these patients, as well as other clinical outcomes, with a minimum follow-up of 12 months, were included. Study quality was evaluated using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) score. Reinfection and complication rates were extracted, and pooled estimates were calculated using the random-effect model.

RESULTS

After careful screening, 44 studies were included, 5 reporting on 1-stage and 30 on 2-stage revisions and 9 assessing both strategies. A total of 185 shoulders were reported in 1-stage revision studies, whereas 526 shoulders were reported in 2-stage revision studies. The overall pooled random-effects reinfection rate was 6.68% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.76-10.13), with low heterogeneity (I2 = 28%, P = .03). One-stage revision showed a reinfection rate of 1.14% (95% CI: 0.00-4.88), whereas 2-stage revision analysis revealed a reinfection rate of 8.81% (95% CI: 4.96-13.33). There were significant statistical differences between 1- and 2-stage reinfection rates (P = .04). The overall pooled rate for other clinical complications was 16.76% (95% CI: 9.49-25.15), with high heterogeneity (I2 = 70%, P < .01). One-stage revision had a complication rate of 6.11% (95% CI: 1.58-12.39), whereas the 2-stage revision complication rate was 21.26% (95% CI: 11.51-32.54). This difference was statistically significant (P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis showing significant statistical differences between 1- and 2-stage surgical revision in infected shoulder arthroplasties. Provided the right conditions exist, 1-stage revision shows better results in infection control, with lower clinical complications and possible better clinical outcomes.

Outcomes after débridement, antibiotics, and implant retention for prosthetic joint infection in shoulder arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Patients who undergo total shoulder arthroplasty usually have excellent long-term outcomes. However, a subset of patients is diagnosed with a prosthetic joint infection (PJI) requiring revision procedures and prolonged recovery. The purpose of this study was to evaluate rates of recurrent shoulder PJI in patients undergoing débridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR), single-stage revision, and 2-stage revision. We also sought to compare outcomes and complications across procedures.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review was conducted for patients diagnosed with PJI after primary shoulder arthroplasty between January 2010 and August 2021. Patients were included if they underwent treatment with DAIR, single-stage revision, or 2-stage revision. Demographic information, surgical details, complications, laboratory data, postoperative antibiotic regimen, and infectious pathogen were collected. Postoperative patient-reported outcomes were collected: American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, Shoulder Activity Scale, and PROMIS Upper Extremity. Chi-square, t test, and 1-way analysis of variance were used as appropriate to evaluate each factor.

RESULTS

Sixty-five patients were included in the study, 26% treated with DAIR, 9% treated with single-stage revision, and 65% treated with 2-stage revision. There were no significant differences in patient comorbidities. Patients undergoing DAIR were diagnosed significantly earlier than those undergoing single- and 2-stage revision procedures (12.6 ± 22.9 months vs. 49.6 ± 48.4 vs. 25.0 ± 26.6, P = .010). Recurrent PJI was noted in 23.1% of patients: 29.4% of DAIR patients, no single-stage patients, and 23.8% of 2-stage patients (P = .330). Patients undergoing 2-stage revision with treatment failure had a significantly higher Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (0.2 ± 3.7 vs. 3.7 ± 3.9, P = .027). There was no significant difference in patient-reported outcomes across groups.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing treatment of shoulder PJI with DAIR did not have an increased rate of reinfection compared with single-stage and 2-stage revision procedures. Patients treated with DAIR were diagnosed with PJI significantly earlier than those undergoing single-stage and 2-stage revision procedures. There was no difference in complication rates between groups. This information adds to the body of work detailing outcomes after DAIR for shoulder PJI and provides encouraging data for use in this patient population. Future studies with a larger sample size may be conducted to further investigate specific pathogens, infection timelines, and antibiotic regimens that reduce the risk of treatment failure.

Innovations in the Realm of Shoulder Arthroplasty

Most of the surgeries regarding the shoulder were established over a century ago [...].

Changes in microbiological spectrum and antibiotic susceptibility in two-stage exchange for periprosthetic shoulder infections

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) are a major concern in shoulder arthroplasty, which in some cases require two-stage exchange. While it was shown that low-virulence bacteria are the most isolated pathogens in shoulder PJI, little is known about changes in microbiological spectrum and resistance patterns during two-stage revision.

METHODS

This retrospective study included all patients (n = 25) who received a two-stage revision from January 2011 to December 2020 for shoulder PJI in one institution. Microbiological spectrum, antimicrobial resistance patterns, and re-revision rates of culture positive first- and second-stage procedures were analyzed. The mean follow-up time was 29.7 months (range 8; 115 months). At final follow-up, subjective shoulder value (SSV) and visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain and satisfaction with the surgery were assessed.

RESULTS

In 25 patients, a total of 54 2-stage exchange procedures were performed and positive cultures were obtained in 36 of these surgeries (66.7%). A total of 7 out of 25 patients (28.0%) showed a positive microbiological culture at first and second stages. In those patients, the mean time between first and second stages was 30.9 weeks (range 6; 70). Three out of those seven patients (42.9%) had a polymicrobial spectrum with one microorganism persistent at stage two, including Cutibacterium acnes (n = 1) and Staphylococcus epidermidis (MRSE) (n = 2). In all these cases, antimicrobial resistance patterns changed. All cultures with monomicrobial spectrum (n = 4) at first stage showed a changed spectrum. Patients with positive first- and second-stage revisions showed a mean SSV of 49.3% ± 23.5 versus 52.9% ± 29.5 in single positive patients (p = 0.76). Re-revision was performed in five cases, two of those in patients with positive first- and second-stage cultures.

CONCLUSION

There is a high rate of changes in microbiological spectrum and resistance patterns between culture positive first- and second-stage procedures as well as subsequent re-revisions. Intraoperative samples during reimplantation should be taken and resistance reconsidered in case of re-revision.